About your Search

20121230
20121230
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
that we have right now. last week, commissioner antonini had stated when you add something, you want to take it back. i thought that was a well-spoken remark and that should be applied to this particular new appraisal. also i know that we talked about the building of this home but i also think that we're concerned about the bottom of the hill. we have a foundation that right adjacent to the -- if that's demolished i think there should be some consideration to the demolishment and soundness of the concrete next to our home. thank you for listening to my concerns. >> president fong: thank you. next speaker please. >> mr. president and commissioners, my name is jill artolla, and i side at 4008, my husband and i are native san franciscans and have owned our home for more than 30 years. we look forward to living there for a long time as well. i do not recognize many of the people that stood as our neighbors either. i am outside, gardening very often. we are concerned about the loss of light and view of open space after this large home is built. we would like to encourage you to reduce its
. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so
. commissioner antonini, i would move to adopt? >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, as you know, there is a statewide requirement to provide housing for all income levels and in particular county or cities. but it does not necessarily have to be inclusionary housing. i mean, you can use other methods of doing it. from what i understand, and maybe you could comment on other jurisdictions within the bay area? what do they do? if they use inclusionary, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and housing or ownership units? are they similar to ours? are they lower percentages? well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15% on-site and 20% offsite? >> i'm afraid i can't comment on that. i am not familiar with inclusionary programs in other jurisdictions. >> that is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i don't think i can support it at that point, because i really don't have all the information. if it comes up in the future, i would like to hear
to commissioners. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. i guess the first issue which was raised on a number of occasions is why this is before us? maybe mr. sanchez could tell us the reason why this new project is before us. >> thank you. so first, this is just an informational item. this is not an action item and there is not a project before you to approve or disprove, but the planning code states no application proposing an amendment, conditional use or variance, the same or substantially the same as that which was disapproved shall be resnit smieed or reconsidered by the planning commission or zoning administrator within a period of one year of effective action upon the earlier application this. is where the one-year bar has been raised and the planning code says you cannot submit the same or substantially the same project. it's a planning code provision and i reviewed the plans submitted and found it's not substantially the same, so it can come before you within the year. it's fully within your discretion when you have the hearing on that item and i don't know when that date would
that is my motion. >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> i agree with that. i think it's a good establishment and i did have correspondence from one person that they were serving hard alcohol and that is clearly not the case. it's beer and wine. it's not a bridge and tunnel crowd, but a lot of locals from the neighborhood. so that sounds good to me, but i would go along with the conditions and what i hear is that the lighting on the outside -- the speaker on the outside has apparently already been corrected, but that is important that that stay that way and the light is minimized to the effect it's not interfering with anybody and the stage is moved to the rear. and windows closed at 10:00. and i don't know if there were any other conditions, commissioner? it's a step in the right direction? >> if i could clarify the conditions. currently no speakers are permitted on the exterior of the building and all windows closed during any performance of live entertainment and in addition to that, that all windows are closed period at 10:00 p.m.regardless of whether or not there is lif
additional public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> i have a few questions on some of the items. you mentioned an increase of 20% in-square-footage or one more additional dwelling units that would trigger the requirement, would that be for a private residence too? if you just added 20% to your residence? >> so any building? >> but it could be a private residence or a private home? >> yes. >> okay. i don't quite understand that. >> maybe if you could describe the parking requirements for a small residential building, it's just garage space that is sufficient. that is all. >> for buildings of four units or less, sorry, for buildings less than four units, there won't need to be any rocks. it just needs to be sufficient space for bikes in their garage or any other storage space. for buildings of four or more units there are requirements for one bicycle space for each unit. and then any building that adds another unit or adds 20% of-square-footage to the building will be subject to the new requirements. >> okay. my second question is who makes the decisio
antonini. >> thank you, i had a couple of questions on the memo. and i am led to believe when i first saw this, i thought it was the entire program. but this is only a memo dealing with the resale of existing ownership units and then dealing with the other entities here. for example, as i recall unless it's changed, your for-sale ownership units are 100 ami and it can be up to 120 in some instances, but i believe it's always been at 100 ami has been the price for-sale units. and then the rental units at 60 ami? >> that is correct, but there has been adjustment. there are two ami tables that we use in san francisco. there is a tri-county, or three county ami table. at one point the board of supervisors directed us to use a san francisco-specific table and given the relative wealth of our adjacent counties to the south and north, san francisco's ami is about 10% lower than the tri-county ami. so san francisco -- 100% ami is equivalent to 90% in san francisco and that is called out here. similarly on the rental side, it coordinates to 55%. >> i understand what you are doing, but i don't
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7